So lets assume its all a lie

co2 has nothing to do with the current climate, it has everything to do with increasing government control and destroying the middle class in western countries

anyone got a link to a practical energy storage system that could store enough energy to power a city the size of Cleavland for a week when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing ? ....didn't think so

 

the sun is always shinning somewhere and the always blows somewhere and both can be transferred... rivers flow 24/7 and geothermal is 24/7...and let's not forget nuclear sources and the coming tidal sources....combine all those with more efficient energy use and there is no reason not to eliminate fossil fuels...

at the moment in my city the energy is primarily fossil fuel but there is already a growing combination of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal being added...despite your nay-saying and general lack of knowledge the move away from fossil fuels has already begun...

 

Look, no matter my thoughts on climate change, this is a good thing. However, none of these things are ready to remove or compensate for fossil fuels usage, at this present time. Irregardless of the added costs of paying greater to instil this technology, it is not reliable enough and takes far too much resources (as in land use) that can be justified. This fact is been given by the governments around the world who are calculating to emit more pollution and simply mitigating it.

I think science should be moving more to developing more safer, cleaner and cost effective ways to produce energy rather than spending Billions on scientist to try and find a way to prove AGW is a cause and effect.

 

change can't happen overnight the entire globe is hooked into fossil fuels this isn't something that can be changed short term but every country is making changes away from fossil fuels...

climatologists, volcanologists, meteorologists and every other scientist from every other science connected with climate are not engineers, engineers are those primarily responsible for new sources of energy development and conservation....

climatologists have enough problems trying to educate/countering the denier world that are intent on scuttling any development that would take us away from reducing CO2 emissions...

 

... let the free market thrive.



Also see attached.

You can be a libertarian and support lots of environmental regulations -- that's a perfectly acceptable libertarian stance.

 

Al Gore, CCX, Goldman Sachs, Spains Green economy as the model, green jobs equal government jobs equal voting block for libs/dems...and subsequent taxation on literally humanity itself.

And, any time, that the fraudulent self imposed spokesperson declares there is to no more dialog, the science is unquestionable...I know the root subject in question is usually a lie looking to stay hidden, which means hidden agenda for financial or political gain.

It is a science that is speculative at best, and that is the perfect foundation to build a lie.

 

Well, that is my point, so many people are studying these courses, to begin a great career to educate many, on something that really should be irrelevant. Governments around the world are spending so much, to educate and fund all these studies that grow each year to find places for scientist to have a career that does what, educate us all on the environment. No doubt, eventually these careers will become flooded with more scientists out to make a name for themselves, clouding the issues even further. You can proclaim, I am talking about one side or the other but this issue is clouded from both sides.

The issue of moving away from fossil fuels is not just an environmental issue. IMO, the world has actually stalled in many areas of development. Just on the fossil fuels, what great advancements have been achieved in the transport area. the primary piece of machinery is the eternal combustion engine running on fossil fuels. this operation has not change for over 100 years. Relative to this, we now use mobile phones that a mere 40 years ago, we joked about the length of the lead you would need to carry. Now you can carry a computer that not only makes phone calls but has more computing power than the rocket that was sent to the moon.

Is it not great to see how government and corporate greed can hold man back in developing better alternatives? Just for anyone with any curiosity, How much money, world wide, is spent by governments and corporations, on proving a hypotheses right? How about how much money is spent to find alternatives? I think you will find the world is spending more money to prove a theory, than trying find ways to rid the world of this theory issue. I think the priorities are wrong.

As in business, if you are stagnant your dieing. I feel the world is stagnant in development, and channelling money to areas to simply make yourself more knowledgeable to a subject, not resolving the problem.

 

that's just wrong on so many levels...scientists generally extend our knowledge...engineers take that new knowledge and build on it...

 

I know the difference between the two and that is the issue. so much funding is going to expand knowledge and nothing is going to Build on it. The is much need as well for scientific research to find better alternatives as well, but that would seem to be ignored for the ever engrossing attempts to get a reasonable result to a hypnosis with little is left to actually act on the issues.

 

then you'll have no problems finding the stats to back these claims?

 

I'll have to get back to you on that as it would include calculations of many nations around the world to find the known figures of what is spent on actually producing alternatives.

I should clarify that when I say nothing, I do not really mean zero amount. I mean it is nothing compared to the amount that is spent on trying to justify the theory. I believe that it should actually be the other way around.

But it will take time to accumulate

 

Just because you are not aware of engineering research does not mean it does not exist. To help start your research here is a start on what the US is doing:

and from here

I find it hard to believe that money spent on theory even exceeds just the two examples I have posted.

 

Did I say it does not exist? No, I think I clarified that comment as to show that it does exist but not to the same extent.

So tell me what is the Budget for the IPCC only one of the organisations? How about NOA, CRU, etc, etc,

As I stated I would need time to find the appropriate material to calculate the world wide costs of both. But seeing as how you seem to have all the figures, How much does the US spend on scientist to research the climate?

It is one thing to pick a couple of funding projects and then comment on the fact it is occurring. It is another thing to provide the figures that would also show that my comment is completely inaccurate.

But taken on face value (of my original comment) I will apologise if you think I meant NOTHING at all was spent in finding alternatives. Just to clarify again, The amount spent on finding alternatives is nothing compared to the money spent on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory. There are many figures that need to be evaluated, such as government funding at university for students to study climate science, programs to fund organisations who main goal is to organise climate change studies and so on. Oh, also I am talking more about government sectors rather than private sectors, because the private sector does not spend much at all on researching the climate.

Considering the Australian government has agreed to pay 10% of any funds raised through taxes and alike of climate policy to the UN to fund groups such as the IPCC, should indicate to you that there is a hell of a lot of money being funnelled to study of the climate.

I do not mean or intend to attribute any wrong doing or corruption to that comment, it just does not make sense to me that so much funding is spent to study these things and little of the money is actually used to advance the human population to a cleaner world. I do realise that there has been forces pressure against the advancement away from fossil fuels and that we are extremely slowly moving away from it but advancement has been so slow it is stagnant. I do not see why, it is so focused on climate science, as to more of moving the human population into more advanced position. I do realise people generally do not like change, as there is so much distrust of others intentions, due entirely most suffer from things that are supposed to make their life better. Greed and inconsideration has grown to such an extent that people will do things that will only benefit themselves regardless of who it hurts.

A cleaner future needs far better alternatives than is available now. It is that simple, the world is in no position to simply rid itself of all this polluting industry for a cleaner industry, and no amount of money at this very point will change that. ALL the climate studies show this, because they still think that mitigation is a good way to reduce emissions, when in fact they think we can emit more while using mitigation to defer it. Mitigation does not reduce emissions at all, in any way, it simply makes the pollies feel good about it and allows many to gain wealth from it.

 

yes I understand you're only trying to make your point when you "zero"...

I think when you do find the actual dollar figures for scientific research into climate change and it's effects is a drop in the bucket when compared to engineering technology, there isn't a lot of profit for scientific research, potential profit for engineering solutions on the other hand is limitless...

 

Fair enough. I should have been more careful with my words.

IPCC does no research and does nothing to "justify the theory" so budget of IPCC should not be included in research expenditures. IPCC onlycollects research done by others.
NOAA climate:

NASA Earth Science (includes satellites): $1.82 billion.
Still nowhere near the $4.8 billion from just 2 grants.
I do not have numbers for CRU or BOM. Even if they both spent $1 billion, money spent on alternatives ($4.8B) is not "nothing compared to the money spent on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory".

Actually mitigation does mean reducing emissions.

 

In my opinion, we should be allocating resources to obtain more perfect knowledge of structures; so that even if we were subjected to a flood of biblical proportions, it would not have to matter much.

Stargate Atlantis, anyone?

 

Fair enough.

The IPCC correlates other scientists results and examines them in the context of climate change. They create the reports and recommendations of what is expected of climate change. You are right to point out that they do no research of their own but they do analyse the results. So, yes they should be included. As I believe they are one of the most funded organisations, I think maybe it is important to realise they only exist to analyse the data to build strategies for the climate mitigation.

Thank you for that very helpful contribution.

These two are very tricky as the CRU, I am not sure of their entire mission statements and need to evaluate the exact assignments to ascertain the extent of spending. BOM on the other is a government weather bureau, which is funded to do more than monitor climate. It is important that they evaluate their funding to distinguish the funding for climate change activities.

No, mitigation is deferring the impact. emissions are what is exhausted. They are two different things. to put it in perspective. IF I fart 1 ton an hour of CO2 and then plant a tree to mitigate that CO2, Do I now fart .5 ton of CO2? No I am still emitting 1 ton. NO reduction. I do not know HOW you can then say I am emitting less because I planted a tree.

 

The point is that IPCC does not spend money "on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory". If the IPCC never existed, the science would be the same; the conclusions reached would be the same.

If you want to change your statement to include reports and recommendations on climate change, you will have to include the budget of the IPCC in the technology expenditures as they also report and make recommendations on available technology.

source

Would you not agree that that money spent on alternatives ($4.8B from just 2 grants) is not "nothing compared to the money spent on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory"?

Not just deferring the impact, but also reducing the emissions.

 

Yes, that would be all encompassing. As with other organisations these must be taken into account as well. I have set myself a very large task that will take a very long time, As my time is not exactly abundant. If somebody has done this already I would like to see the outcomes.

On the face of it yes, However, IF the amount used to simply study the issue is 4000 Billion world wide it is not, is it?


As for your link on mitigation, the quote you promote actually has nothing to do with offsetting CO2 emissions. It talks of using alternatives to reduce emissions.

AS I stated, how do you use a tree to mitigate your emissions? I possibly should have stated offset your emissions but hey. Your link states using alternatives to reduce demand on CO2 producing industry. Also it talks about using technology to capture, but NOWHERE in that quote does it discuss using trees as mitigation, Which is what all the countries who intend to introduce a scheme based on the IPCC reporting is doing in full knowledge that emissions are actually going to rise.

 

The efficiency of heat engines is limited by Carnot efficiency. Storing heat reduces the effeciency significantly.

I get all my hot water from March to December from 3 solar heating panels, heating my house, even when it is sunny 300 days a year in rural San Diego, would require several swimming pool size storage tanks.

 

You are looking at the first order effects. Nothing in politics is what it seems.

Coal and oil made the industrial revolution possible, and allow us to be hugely productive. Food production now takes a few people running large machines, instead of thousands of of manual laborers.

The goal of "global warming" is to reduce prosperity, reduce independance and increase dependance on the rich and powerful in government.

 

What objection is there to allocating the Peoples' resources by building better infrastructure, rather than simply play shell games with Statism that do nothing to provide concrete solutions to our structural dilemmas in Nature.

With more perfect knowledge of structures, we could tap into active volcanoes and extract both ores and energy, to power habitation structures on the ocean floor; regardless of climate change.

 

I would be very surprised if $4000 Billion is being spent on research. But yes, if 1000 times ( or even 10 times) more money were spent on research than on technology I would agree with you.

Another quote from the same paper:

I would recommend you read the mitigation section of the IPCC's report It clearly shows that mitigation also includes a decrease in the amount of CO2 that should be allowed to be put into the atmosphere.

 

Statism requires government participation, and our government is cooperating. How can you tell, CEO's and a truely competitive marketplace couldn't make hundreds of millions in income - a competitor would be happy with tens of millions, and use the balance to cut prices and steal market share.

Regulation is often the method corporations and government use to create defacto monopolies.

Monopolies don't need to innovate. That is only for those too poor to buy politicians and regulators.

Envioronmental protection is being used to make non-CO2 producing forms of energy too expensive.

Take a minutes and think of all the environmental damage you city under the sea would cause.

Bootleggers used Baptist to pass prohibition. Environmentalists are being used to advance statism.

 

From my perspective, we already have a political-economy enumerated into our supreme law of the land; a republican form of government and a duopoly of a public sector and a private sector, in a money based, mixed market economy.

Ensuring full employment of resources in any given market can be considered a function and obligation of Government and is ordained and established by our Founding Fathers in our supreme law of the land in the enumeration that delegates the power to ensure a republican form of Government, whenever there is a poverty of Statism instead of a peaceful State enjoying its domestic tranquility and security.

Infrastructure is one example of a natural public sector monopoly; post roads and post offices, and presumably the post infrastructure necessary to administer that Constitutional obligation and service to the People.

In my opinion, we could be lowering our tax burden by better developing our infrastructure and improving the efficiency of our economy in the process.

Why would an undersea city cause any more environmental damage to us or the local ecosystem, than we do now in any case, whenever we do something similar on the surface?

However, a reason for obtaining more perfect knowledge of such arts and sciences, is to better adapt to evolution in Nature.